I recently watched the dialogue between Adnan Rashid and Anthony Buzzard. I have to say that Anthony Buzzard really disappoints me. I don’t think that he has a lot of substance. He claims that he’s shunned by Christians for saying the Shema. That’s obviously a dishonest statement. He’s shunned for giving an interpretation for the Shema that’s consistent with medieval Rabbinic Judaism.
When Martin Luther proposed Sola Scriptura in the early 16th century and then proposed Sola Fide, I don’t think he had bad intentions. While it’s a theological error, it at least had good intentions. I believe that Luther was extremely confused with all the corruption and theological Nominalism that he had learned that he needed to find a solution. Sola Fide was the answer. I would say that most Protestant doctrines are like that. Perseverance of the Saints would be another example.
As you know we have liberal “Christians”. There are two kinds of liberals. Ones that say that the Bible is useless, we can’t trust it and need to move beyond it. Those are most liberals. The second one is this group that holds liberal doctrine but claim to respect the authority of Scripture. Of course they don’t respect scripture; scripture is only there to meet their sick needs. I’m of course talking about people like Anthony Buzzard, Michael Coren, and Matthew Vines.
One trump card I’d use on them is that their heresies are inconsistent with tradition. Now, a Protestant can use tradition but scripture is the ultimate authority over tradition. If a tradition disagrees with scripture, they go with scripture. Of course what the scripture says and whether it contradicts tradition is completely subjective.
If someone like James White had a debate with Matthew Vines and trounced him, it’s obviously two fallible opinions against each other. Don’t get me wrong, traditional Protestants are far more loyal to the Bible than these heretics like Buzzard, Coren, and Vines.
However, the truth is that every heretic(except for those raging modernists) claims that his or her theology is Biblical. Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia never went around saying that their theology is unbiblical and that you need to reject Biblical theology in favour of their unbiblical theology. Every heretic has claimed to be Biblical. St. Vincent of Lerins says that in his Commonitory.
This isn’t meant to be a gotcha against Protestants. That’s not my objective. I know that a devout Protestant would give Anthony Buzzard a run for his money. But I must ask. Would it not be better if tradition was an authority? That would immediately end their heretical fantasies.
Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.